Reds Fan Since 1971
Fangraphs just posted an article looking solely at offensive performance. Guess who's #1?
The Triple Crown is an absolutely awesome achievement. But it's an incomplete measure of offensive performance, let alone an incomplete measure of total value. It turns out that hitting in to a ton of double plays actually hurts your team. Equating Triple Crown with an automatic MVP is, in my opinion, just plain lazy.
Rare accomplishments are fun and deserve both praise and attention. But Miguel Cabrera doesn't automatically deserve an MVP because one combination of his stats has a label on it.
The last player to hit for the Triple Crown did it 45 years ago. It has been done 16 times, but many of us weren't alive the last time it happened.
The last player to hit .320 with 30 HR and 45 SB was nobody. Mike Trout is the first player in major league history to do that. Nobody has ever seen it happen until this year.
.293 37HR's 50SB
Red's fans have seen it in consecutive seasons...really, there isn't much difference. You are quoting AVG? I thought AVG didn't mean anything to metric guys? We can combine stats from 100's of players into combinations that have never been duplicated. It doesn't mean we haven't seen it before...it means we haven't seen it exactly but we have seen it in the same range 100's of times.
If the Triple Crown wasn't called anything, how would you defend the selection of choosing those three stats in particular? You'd essentially be picking the only 3 stats out of all the stats out there where Cabrera was better than Trout. It would be obvious cherry picking. But because that combo has a name, it feels more important.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 10-04-2012 at 03:17 PM.
MVP is subjective. It includes clubhouse value, leadership and getting your team into the playoffs. MVP can be different from best player.
Voters might lean toward giving Cabrera the MVP, just because they know Trout will get rookie of the year. In the minds of people like Marty, Cabrera embodies their idea of an MVP. The triple crown is just icing on the cake.
Right or wrong, a lot of MVP votes are going to be based on the voter's idea that they know an MVP when they see one. More feeling than analysis. That is the nature of the award.
Derek Jeter is the oldest player to lead the league in hits, he will probably get some votes.
Awards are flawed, awards are opinion, awards are noise
But if a person wants to vote for Cabrera because he just feels like an MVP to them, just come out and say that. And if they want to vote for him because they think the 3 triple crown stats actually are the best measure of value from an analytical perspective, come out and say that and be willing to defend it against other analysts.
Just don't try to make the "well, the Triple Crown is rare" case and then get upset when a different combination of stats that is just as defensible (or indefensible as the case may be) shows that Trout has done something even rarer. Don't cite Cabrera's intangibles while completely ignoring the intangibles of Trout (or any other candidate). Don't tell me that he added value to his team by being willing to be a poor defender (Ask Justin Verlander how he liked have Cabrera at 3B -- it may cost him a 2nd Cy Young). You get the point.
I know people will disagree with the set of criteria I use. I just want them to be honest and consistent about theirs.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 10-04-2012 at 03:25 PM.
To be fair (to me ) I never used the Triple Crown as my reason for Cabrera being my choice for MVP. And, I'm not going to go over it again. You make valid points but I just have a different opinion and it's not based on just a "feeling."